Suo motu revision limitation turns on calling for records within time, not on notice or final order

For suo motu revision under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, limitation is satisfied when the revisional authority calls for the records within four years of the order sought to be revised. The provision treats calling for records, examining them, and passing the revisional order as parts of one revisional power, so the four-year period governs initiation of revision, not its completion. Notice to the assessee and the final revisional order need not be issued within that period. The assessee's limitation challenge was rejected, and the later insertion of section 22-B did not alter this settled position on initiation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for exercise of revisional power under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, limitation is satisfied when the revisional authority calls for the records within four years of the order sought to be revised, or whether the notice to the assessee and completion of the proceedings must also occur within that period.

Analysis: The language of section 22-A treats calling for the records, examination of those records, and passing of the revisional order as facets of one revisional power. The period of four years in sub-section (3) governs the commencement of that power, not its completion. Earlier binding decisions had already held that proceedings are initiated when the records are summoned, and that no separate requirement exists that the notice or final order must be issued within the same four-year period. The later Supreme Court decision did not alter that legal position on the point of law; it turned on the factual conclusion that no action had in fact been initiated in that case. The subsequent insertion of section 22-B also addressed delay in completion, but it did not displace the settled position on initiation.

Conclusion: Limitation under section 22-A is satisfied if the records are called for within four years of the order sought to be revised; the notice or final revisional order need not be issued within that four-year period. The contention of the assessee was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revisional proceeding was held to have been validly initiated in time, and the challenge to the notice on limitation failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For suo motu revision under section 22-A, the decisive act for limitation is the calling for of records within the prescribed period, because initiation of revision commences then and not on service of notice or on completion of the revisional order.

---